BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest\nof revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct in allowing the\ninterest on perpetual debt instruments without examining and verifying the\nallowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of Id. representatives we\nhave gone through the copies of documents and detailed submission made before\nthe

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act observed as\nfollows: -\n\"16 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and\nperused the relevant material on record. As far as argument of rule of\nconsistency is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contention of the\nassessee following the decision

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial\nto the interest of revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct\n8\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nin allowing the interest on perpetual debt instruments without examining\nand verifying the allowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of ld.\nrepresentatives we have

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial\nto the interest of revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct\n8\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nin allowing the interest on perpetual debt instruments without examining\nand verifying the allowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of ld.\nrepresentatives we have

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial\nto the interest of revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct\n7\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nin allowing the interest on perpetual debt instruments without examining\nand verifying the allowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of ld.\nrepresentatives we have

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

144C(13) as erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial\nto the interest of revenue holding that the Assessing Officer was not correct\n7\nITA Nos. 1440, 1819, 1441 & 1818Mum 2023\nM/s Union Bank of India\nin allowing the interest on perpetual debt instruments without examining\nand verifying the allowability of such expenditure. With the assistance of ld.\nrepresentatives we have

ATOMSTROYEXPORT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)CIRCLE -1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act') for the AY 2020-21. The assessee raised the following grounds: “Taxability of payment received under Offshore Supply Contracts 1) The learned DCIT/DRP erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 3267,27,22,775 received by the appellant company from the Offshore Supply Contracts was taxable

ASSTT. CIT -CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LUPIN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1,18,20,185  Disallowance of sales promotion expenses amounting to Rs. 82,30,32,740  Weighted Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act on Clinical & Analytical Charges of Rs. 49,94,52,208;  Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Ac other R&D expenditure of Rs. 8,17,46,000 (through rectification under section

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1,18,20,185  Disallowance of sales promotion expenses amounting to Rs. 82,30,32,740  Weighted Deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act on Clinical & Analytical Charges of Rs. 49,94,52,208;  Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Ac other R&D expenditure of Rs. 8,17,46,000 (through rectification under section

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

144C(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17, all the assessment orders were passed on 23/01/2019. 2. Considering the appeal record we find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a combined order related to A.Ys 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assesseeonly related to A.Ys

IMPERIAL MARK TRADE (I) P.LTD,THANE vs. DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

purchase and sale of commodities. The AO vide draft assessment order dated 29/03/2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act disallowed loss on high seas sales of Rs. 8,82,90,741 on the basis that the same is bogus

ACIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

144C of the Act was completed on 25.03.2019, wherein the total income was assessed at Rs.16797,17,09,934/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit at Rs.37412,87,67,520/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Along with the assessment order, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of various additions

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is partly\nallowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases form a minor fraction of total volurne of\nthe assessee company and it is stated that there is no day-to-day\ninvolvement of the management. It was further submitted that the\nassessee is having strict internal controls. Hence, we are of the\nview that the AO has not made a proper ground in support of the\ndisallowance

JT. CIT (ODS) - CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income at ₹.30,84,36,71,563. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the disallowances and claims rejected by the Assessing Officer in the Page No. 5 ITA NO. 1789 & 1466/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14) ITA NO. 222 & 220/MUM/2022